Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 445 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture - the appellants are engaged in undertaking works contract which involved supply of material and service for which they procured materials like, aluminum doors, windows, curtain wall, structural glazing, suspended glaze, spider glass, sky lights and canopies, etc. on payment of proper excise duty - case of the department is that the appellants activity is of manufacture of the parts of doors and windows, structural glazing, curtain wall, spider glazing, etc. which is liable to excise duty - Held that: - it is apparent that there is a mistake in quantification of demand. However, the same is subject to verification by the adjudicating authority - We also observed that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the entire case solely on the basis of Larger Bench judgement of Mahindra & Mahindra [2006 (4) TMI 18 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - the reliance solely on the basis of Larger Bench decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) is not proper on the part of the Commissioner for confirming the demand. The adjudicating authority shall pass a denovo adjudication order after verifying the quantification as submitted by the appellant and also by analyzing various judgements cited by the learned Counsel - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|